Clarification: And in the days of Sarah, the Beis-Din of Shem existed.

Alternative Text: Rabeinu Shmu'el quotes the Sifri, which cites a different text - 'It implies whether one cries out or not' ...

Clarification: In other words, whether the poor man cries out against him or not, either way, he is punished for what he did to him.

Clarification (cont.): This is logical, seeing as either way, he did not return his pledge ...

Clarification (concl.): And the Torah only writes "And it will be, if he cries out that I will listen" - to teach us that the one that cries out is answered sooner then the one who doesn't.

Extrapolation: According to this text, we do not learn it from Sarah in the way that Rashi explained according to the text in our Sefarim.

Clarification: And he pays everything, even for the pain.

Clarification: He comes to resolve the Mishnah, to explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains both the Reisha and the Seifa that if he says 'No?' in question form, it is as if he said 'Yes', and vice-versa ...

Implied Question: And the Tana could have learnt both cases, both in the Reisha and in the Seifa, with regard to either Nizkei Gufo or Nizkei Mamono ...

Answer: Only the norm is to forego damages to one's property, but not damages to one's body.

Refutation: But this a Dochek.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that by damages to his body, even if he says 'Yes' in a manner that suggests a statement, he probably meant it as a question (surprise), and likewise by damages to his property, where he says 'No' in a manner that suggests a statement, he probably meant it as a question (surprise) ...

Reason: ... seeing as initially he specifically told him to tear his garment or to break his jar.

Refute Text: There are some texts that read 'How is that?'

Refutation: But we do not have that text.

Question: What is the Gemara's Kashya? The Torah may well exempt him from negligence, but where does it exempt him if he tears or destroys it with his hands?

Answer #1: The Gemara deduces it from the Lashon 've'Lo Likro'a' ...

Answer #1 (cont.): ... because if it was coming to exempt him when it is merely lost through carelessness, then he should be Patur even if he did not say 'al-M'nas Likro'a', as long as he did not tell him to look after it ...

Precedent: ... as Rebbi Shimon (or Rebbi Yishmael) Darshens in the Mechilta ' ... until he deposits the article by him and says "Take it and guard it for me!"; but if he merely says "Keep an eye on it", he is Patur'.

Answer #1 (cont.): ... and the Gemara answers that the Mishnah is speaking where it came to his hand ...

Implied Question: And when the Mishnah continues 'In order to be Patur, he is Patur', it could have taught us that he is Patur even without 'the condition, where it did not yet come to his hand ...

Answer #1: ... only the Tana is currently specifically coming to teach us that by Nizkei Mamon the stipulation is effective, but not by Nizkei Gufo.

Answer #2: Whereas the Ri explains "Lishmor", 've'Lo Likero'a' to mean that he gave him the article to look after but not to tear or to destroy, in which case he has the full Din of a Shomer ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... whereas if he would authorize him to tear or to destroy it, he does not have the Din of a Shomer at all, merely because he undertakes to guard the article ...

Reason: ... seeing as he gave him permission to tear or to destroy it should he so wish.

Answer #2 (concl.): And if allowing him to tear it does not exempt him should he in fact tear it, then he ought to be considered a Shomer when he grants him permission to tear it as if he had only given it to him to guard S'tam (without stipulating).

Explanation #1 (Rav Huna): 'One speaks where it came to his hand' - This refers to our Mishnah where he gave it to him and said 'Guard it, and if you wish to tear it, then go ahead' ...

Reason: ... because seeing as he is concerned about the object, since he did not not say directly 'Tear it!' until it reached his hand ...

Reason (cont.): ... when he subsequently authorizes him to destroy it, he does not do so in order to exempt him, but rather to convince him to look after the object willingly ...

Reason (concl.): ... and to deter him from worrying that he might come down on him excessively hard and take him to court should he tear it.

Conclusion: Consequently, even though it came to his hand with a 'concession' to tear it, as the owner stipulated when he handed it to him, he is nevertheless Chayav should he actually do so ...

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas the Beraisa speaks where it did not yet come to his hand - where he said to him 'Take the object that is lying over there and guard it for me, and if you want, you may tear it' ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and he then took it and tore it.

Reason: ... because, since he does not care about the object, but allows him to tear it even before it reaches his hand, he clearly does not mind if he destroys it, and the authorization was in order to exempt him.

Question: 'Rabah asked him (Rav Huna) But "Lish'mor" implies that it has already come to his hand ...

Clarification: ... since the Pasuk implies that he granted him permission to guard it only, but that if he also allowed him to tear it, he does not have the Din of a Shomer?

Explanation #1 (Rabah): Therefore Rabah explains that the Mishnah speaks where it came to his hand only to guard it, and only afterwards did he change his mind and authorize him to tear it ...

Reason: ... because, since he initially gave it to him exclusively to guard, and not to tear, and the Nifkad undertook to do so, when he subsequently permits him to tear it should he do wish, he is merely pulling his leg and making small talk ...

Rabah's Explanation: ... whereas the Beraisa speaks where it came to his hand in order to tear it - where as he gave it to him, he permitted it ...

Reason: Consequently, since he said it to him before he became a Shomer, he doesn't mind if he actually tears it.

Conclusion: ... and all the more so in the event that he doesn't even appoint him a Shali'ach, but just says to him 'Tear the garment' or 'Break the jar of mine that is lying in front of you!', will he be Patur.

Question: How will Rabah - who holds that even a Shinuy that can revert to its original state is d'Oraysa, as he explained in 'Merubeh' (above, on Daf 65b & 66a) - explain our Mishnah, seeing as ...

Question (cont.): ... neither can he cannot learn like Abaye, nor can he learn like Rav Ashi ...

Reason: ... who establishes it specifically by a Shinuy which is irreversible?

Answer: Rabah will explain that the Mishnah mentions 'wood that has been planed and made into Keilim' to teach us that even a Shinuy that can revert to its original state acquires ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas the Beraisa teaches us that any Shinuy acquires, even if it cannot be classified as a K'li.

Clarification: Specifically an improvement such as this, where he made it into a pestle, is effective ...

Reason: ... because it is considered a Shinuy Ma'aseh; and the same applies to a beam which one made into planks ...

Clarification (cont.): But an improvement where the name of the object does not change, is not effective ...

Proof: ... as the Gemara states later (on Daf 96a) 'If someone steals a date-palm and chops it down, he does not acquire it; a date-palm and he chopped it into plain logs, he does not acquire it ...

Reason: ... since they are simply called 'logs of a date-palm'.

Proof (cont): ... But if he steals plain logs and manufactures them into beams, he acquires them ...

Reason: ... since before they were called 'logs', and now they are called 'beams'.

Reference: As Tosfos explained in 'Merubeh' (above, on Daf 66a).

Question: 'He wove it?' Why did he not already acquire it when he spun it?

Answer: Because the weaving here was performed with un-spun cords.

Precedent: ... as the Gemara explains at the end of the Masechta (Daf 119:).

Clarification: Both cases go according to all opinions: the former (where he bleached it), is not considered a Shinuy even according to Rebbi Shimon, whereas the latter (where he treated it with chemicals) is a Shinuy even according to the Rabanan.

Clarification (cont.): Rava however, declined to learn like that ...

Reason: ... because, he maintains, 'Kavreih Kavru'i' is not called 'bleaching', but 'dyeing'.

Implied Question: And the reason that Rebbi Chiya bar Avin does not answer that 'One speaks where he shook it, and the other, where he treated it with chemicals' ...

Source: ... since even Rebbi Shimon concedes that shaking it is not considered a Shinuy, as is evident in Rava's answer.

Answer: ... is because it mentions the normal case of each one ...

Answer (cont.): ... since one shakes it immediately before combing it, without waiting between one and the other; one combs it straightaway and then before treating it with chemicals one bleaches it.

Conclusion: It now transpires that shaking and bleaching are not considered a Shinuy, according to either Tana, and treating it with chemicals is; whereas their bone of contention is over combing.

Alternative Text: There are some texts that read, in the answer of Rebbi Chiya bar Avin 'Both (the Mishnah and the Beraisa) go according to the Rabanan

Explanation #2: According to this text, we will have to say that they also argue over bleaching as well as over combing.

Question: Why does he not establish them both unanimously, one where he shook it, and the other, where he treated it with chemicals?

Answer: Apparently, Rebbi Chiya bar Avin holds that the Tana'im also argue over where one shook it.

Potential Question: According to Rava, who establishes both like Rebbi Shimon, the Gemara could have asked from 'Tzava' on to 'Tzava'.

Question: And the reason that he differentiates between Libun and Tzevi'ah, when he could have drawn a distinction in Tzevi'ah itself between where it can be removed and where it can't ...

Answer: ... is because he prefers to differentiate between Kala Ilan and Libun, which are both irreversible.

Answer (cont.): According to Rava, on the other hand, Rebbi Shimon considers Libun, which is irrevesible, stronger than Tzava which can be reversed ...

Answer (concl.): Whereas the Rabanan consider Tzava stronger, even though it is reversible, ...

Reason: ... since it is a bigger Shinuy than Libun, which is a weaker Shinuy, even though it is irreversible.

Question: This is a Kashya, since he concedes by 'Tav'o' and 'Argo', and only argues by 'Tzav'o' because, since the actual wool has not changed, he does not consider it a Shinuy?

Answer: 'Amru Davar Echad' is not meant literally, only that they share a common opinion.

Precedent: And we find this idea in many places.